פירוש על בבא קמא 15:8

And if you wish, say [both] this [baraita] and that [braita concern cases where the borrower] did not have superior-quality [land] and sell it. This Tosafot is discussing the third way of reconciling the contradiction between the two Braitas. See previous Tosafot for an explanation of this solution. There is an alternative text for this third solution. Instead of reading that the debtor’s medium-quality is equal to the world’s medium- quality, that text reads that the debtor’s medium-quality is equal to the world’s finest quality. Tosafot rejects that text, as he will now explain.
We do not have the text that in both Braitas the debtor’s middle-quality is equal to the world’s finest quality. For since in this third solution these Braitas are speaking of where the debtor had no finer fields,¹ This assumption that the debtor has no finer fields follows the usual rule of the Gemara that we assume that circumstances remain the same unless we are informed that they have changed. In the previous solution the Gemara said that in either Braita the debtor did not have finer fields that were sold. We assume that this condition remains the same for the third solution since the Gemara did not inform us that the circumstances of the third solution are different from the circumstances of the second solution. Some raise the following question: Tosafot previously said that Braita B is speaking of a situation where the debtor had finer fields and still has them. If so, why can't we say that the Gemara in the third solution also means that both Braitas are speaking of where the debtor had finer fields and still has them? See אוצר מפרשי התלמוד who quotes גידולי תרומה who says that it is very awkward to say that this is what the Gemara means when it says that in both Braitas he did not have finer fields that were sold. Earlier when Tosafot said that this was the meaning of the Gemara, it was an acceptable explanation because one of the Braita was actually speaking of where he never had any finer fields. It is legitimate to say that the other Braita is also speaking of where he did not have a finer field that was sold, because he still has it. However where both Braitas would be speaking of where he actually owned a finer field and still owns it, it is awkward to describe that situation as he did not have a finer field that was sold. why are the fields he has called medium-quality fields since according to this text they are the debtor’s finest and the world’s finest?
And another reason to reject this text is, for if it were so, that his intermediate-quality is equal to the world’s finest and we were to assume that the debtor did have finer fields²See note 1. This assumption that there were finer fields that are not mentioned in the Braita is obviously a departure from the general rule mentioned in note 1. Tosafot is saying that even if we were to assume such a departure from the norm, the Braita would still not make any sense. which is why the fields under discussion are referred to as intermediate-quality, how can we make sense of Braita A that says that the victim of damages and the creditor are paid from the intermediate-quality. This difficulty is compelling both according to the one who says qualities are determined according to the debtor’s properties, and according to the one who says that qualities are determined by world standards. According to the one who says qualities are determined by the debtor’s property, the victim of damages should collect from the finest and the creditor from the debtor’s intermediate- quality. According to the one who holds that qualities are determined by world standards, the victim of damages should collect from the damager’s medium-quality, which is equal to the world’s finest and the creditor should collect from the debtor’s poorest quality because he is not entitled to the finest by world standards.